Time: Sun Nov 03 19:00:11 1996 To: Bernie Oliver <patriot@rtd.com> From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar] Subject: Your Case Cc: Bcc: Bernie, You have a federal question: the grand and trial jurors are all federal citizens (cf. in Black's Law Dictionary). So, remove the action into the District Court of the United States. If your public pretender won't go for it, fire him. Then you can "beat them up" by turning the tables, at the very least, with a Motion to Stay Proceedings Pending Final Resolution of Challenge to the Jury Selection and Service Act. There are lots of other things you can do, like demand a presiding federal judge whose compensation is not being diminished by federal income taxes. All these briefs have already been prepared. This is a general-purpose challenge we have worked up, for people like yourself. Do you want some details? I am standing by. /s/ Paul Mitchell P.S. There are some vicious lies circulating that I am some kind of deep cover government operative. Please evaluate me on the basis of my works, not on the basis of hearsay. If you do, we will work fine together. [This text is formatted in Courier 11, non-proportional spacing.] "Karma and the Federal Courts" by Paul Andrew Mitchell All Rights Reserved (November 1996) The law of karma is this: what goes around, comes around. When you begin with freedom, freedom comes back to dwell in your house. And so, we have come to this point in decoding Title 28 of the United States Codes: there are two classes of federal "District Courts" in the federal court system. One class is for the federal zone; the other class is for the state zone. Using a very powerful rule of statutory construction, "inclusio unius est exclusio alterius," we show that the phrase "District Court of the United States" refers to federal courts for the state zone; and the phrase "United States District Court" refers to federal courts for the federal zone. We have this on the authority of the Supreme Court of the United States, most notably in the cases of American Insurance Company v. 356 Bales of Cotton, and Balzac v. Porto Rico [sic]. Now, here's the rub: Since federal courts are creatures of statutes only, they can only cognize subject matters which are assigned to them expressly by statutes. When it comes to criminal jurisdiction, the controlling statute is 18 U.S.C. 3231. This statute grants original jurisdiction to the District Courts of the United States (DCUS), but does not mention the United States District Courts (USDC)! How about them apples? Remember this carefully: Inclusio unius est exclusio alterius (in Latin ). Inclusion of one is exclusion of others (in English). Since the USDC is not mentioned, its omission can be inferred as intentional. (Read that again, then confirm it in Black's Law Dictionary, any edition). So, from the historian's point of view, Congress has permitted the limited territorial and subject matter jurisdiction of the USDC to be extended, unlawfully, into the state zone, and into subject matters over which said court has no jurisdiction whatsoever. Karma and the Federal Courts: Page 1 of 3 This deception was maintained as long as nobody noticed, but now it is obvious, and quite difficult to change, without bringing down the whole house of cards (which is happening, by the way. The Liege firemen are literally hosing their own corrupt court buildings, so we're not alone in this department of judicial tyranny.) By the way, the famous Belgian Firemen from Liege have been invited, via the Internet, to discharge the Belgian debt to the United States by moving their talents state-side. They should return home debt free, in about ten years or so, depending on available supplies of soap and water. Imagine a sheet of Saran Wrap, which has been yanked too far, by pulling it beyond the strict territorial boundaries which surround the federal zone. This is the United States District Court (USDC), in all its limited Honors and tarnished glory. Further proof of this bad karma can be found by comparing 18 U.S.C. 1964(a) and 1964(c). Both statutes grant authority to issue remedies to restrain racketeering activities prohibited by 18 U.S.C. 1962. Section 1964(a) grants civil jurisdiction to issue injunctive relief to the DCUS; Section 1964(c) grants civil jurisdiction to issue injunctive relief to the USDC. Both refer to the exact same subject matter, namely, RICO (Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organizations) activities. So, when these two statutes are otherwise identical, why did Congress need to enact two separate statutes? The answer is simple: one authority was needed for the DCUS, and the other was needed for the USDC. Simple, really, when the sedition by syntax is explained in language which penetrates the deception. Now, if this is truly the case, and nobody has been able to prove us wrong about this matter, the United States (federal government) is in a heap of trouble here, because it has been prosecuting people in the wrong courts ever since the Civil War; furthermore, those courts have no criminal jurisdiction whatsoever, because such an authority is completely lacking from Titles 18 and 28, both of which have been enacted into positive law, unlike Title 26, which has not been enacted into positive law. See Title 1 for details. What do we do with this earth-shaking discovery? Well, when any federal case is filed, the criminal defendant should submit a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request immediately, for such things as any regulations which have been published in the Federal Register, pursuant to the Federal Register Act, for 18 U.S.C. 3231. Karma and the Federal Courts: Page 2 of 3 It won't hurt to send submit similar FOIA requests for the credentials of all federal employees who have "touched" the case in any way. Since we already know that there are no regulations for 18 U.S.C. 3231, and that federal employees will usually refuse to produce their credentials, your FOIA requests will be met with silence, whereupon you will file a FOIA appeal. Once the appeal deadline has run, you are in court. But which court? Guess ... ... the answer is the District Court of the United States. What an amazing discovery, yes? A United States District Judge in Arizona, in late Spring of 1996, ruled that the United States District Court (USDC) is not the proper forum to litigate a request under the FOIA. That can only be because FOIA requests must be litigated in the District Court of the United States (DCUS). Now we have the United States checkmated. The proper forum for FOIA is now res judicata. If the DCUS is the proper forum for FOIA, and if the USDC is NOT the proper forum for FOIA, THEN the USDC is not the proper forum for prosecuting violations of Title 18 either, because the USDC does not show up in 5 U.S.C. 552 or in 18 U.S.C. 3231! Read that last paragraph again, and again, until you get it. It's okay to admit that you must read it several times; this writer once read a paragraph from Hooven and Allison v. Evatt some 20 different times, until the meaning was finally clear. Inclusio unius est exclusio alterius. The omission by Congress of the USDC from 18 U.S.C. 3231 must have been intentional; the maxim certainly allows us to infer that it was intentional. Use of this maxim allows for us to exploit one of the most powerful techniques in American jurisprudence. It is called "collateral attack" -- a broadside, rather than a head- on, collision. Knowledge is power, and power is freedom ... ... freedom. Freedom! FREEDOM!!! Love it. Common Law Copyright Paul Andrew Mitchell Counselor at Law, federal witness and Citizen of Arizona state All Rights Reserved Without Prejudice November 2, 1996 # # # Karma and the Federal Courts: Page 3 of 3 For Immediate Release July 27, 1996 Juries in Check Around the Nation Payson, Arizona The founders of a new legal cooperative -- the Supreme Law Firm -- have just issued a ground-breaking formal challenge to the process of selecting grand and trial juries everywhere in America. Paul Mitchell, one of the co-founders, has recently documented a serious flaw in the laws enacted by Congress to select jurors for grand and trial jury service. These laws are found in Title 28, United States Code, Sections 1861 and 1865, the federal Jury Selection and Service Act. On the one hand, Congress has said that all citizens should have the opportunity to serve on both kinds of juries (section 1861). On the other hand, Congress has also said that jury candidates must be federal citizens (section 1865). Citizens of the several Union states are not mentioned in these Acts of Congress, and the omission was intentional. Grand juries are convened to consider probable cause for issuing indictments, or formal charges, against people suspected of criminal behavior. Trial juries are convened to try those people and to determine their guilt or innocence. Both kinds of juries are now assembled entirely from voter registration lists, which consist of federal citizens only. In many states, it is a felony to falsify information on a voter registration affidavit. Ever since the Civil War, Congress has been pushing hard, through force and fraud, to get all Americans into a second, inferior class of citizenship known as federal citizenship. This class did not exist in the law before the Civil War. Prior to that war, there was only one class of citizenship, a class which today is called state Citizenship. This is the class that is mentioned in the qualifications for serving in the Congress and the White House. The term "United States" in those provisions means "states United", and the "C" in Citizen is a capital "C", not a lower-case "c" as in the case of federal citizens. Unfortunately for Congress, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled, several times, that class discrimination in the selection of grand or trial jurors is a ground for proving that a jury is not a legal body. This means that any jury which exhibits class discrimination cannot issue lawful indictments, nor can it issue lawful verdicts. There are two "classes" of citizens in America. In fact, several courts have already ruled that one can be a state Citizen without also being a federal citizen, regardless of the Civil War and its ugly aftermath. "We are prepared to stipulate that federal citizens have no standing to challenge the obvious conflict between these two statutes," says Paul Mitchell, the author of several court briefs which are racing through the Internet at present. "But, when it comes to Sovereign state Citizens, the class discrimination is unmistakable, and unconstitutional." At an introductory lecture last week in Mesa, Arizona, members of the audience were enthralled by the prospect that government indictments against state Citizens will soon be thrown out. "The correct procedural move is to petition the court for a dismissal, or a stay of proceedings, pending final resolution of the challenge," explained Mitchell. A stay is a procedural "freeze" on any further hearings, until the controversy is settled. Final resolution means that the matter will be finally decided by the United States Supreme Court, probably after two or more federal appeals courts decide the matter with opposite results. This will almost guarantee a hearing before the Supreme Court. Sample briefs can be obtained from the Supreme Law Firm by contacting co-founder Paul Mitchell at email pmitch@primenet.com. With minor changes, the two briefs can be adapted to any state or federal prosecution, no matter at what step in the proceedings. Mitchell is even prepared to utilize their logic in habeas corpus petitions, in order to release state Citizens from federal prisons. Their indictments and convictions were decided by juries that were not legal bodies. # # # Contact: Paul Mitchell, Mail: 2509 N. Campbell, #1776 Counselor at Law Tucson [zip code exempt] Supreme Law Firm ARIZONA REPUBLIC (520) 320-1514 Email: pmitch@primenet.com At 03:57 PM 11/3/96 -0700, you wrote: >Paul, > > Thanks for the information you passed on to me. It will be forwarded >on to my public defender. As you have, no doubt surmised from that >statement, I'm not in a financial position to put out the $500.00 retainer >and $75.00 per hour for your services. This is not to infer in any way that >I wouldn't if I were in position to do so. I fully understand that your >services are how you make your living. I'm just appreciative of what you >have forwarded to me. > > Not only has my business gone down the perverbial toilet after becoming >a media celebrity, but after having a display ad in the Yellow Pages for >about 20 years they suddenly forgot to put my ad in this year. When you >look on page 1299 it has a one-liner with my company name and instructs the >reader to turn to page 1297 for our display ad-- the one that they forgot to >put. There is, however, another company that pronounces their company name >the same but they spell it differently. > > To say that I've been financialy "nuked" would be to make an >understatement. > > Thank you for what you've already forwarded to me. > > >Sincerely, > >Bernie Oliver > >
Return to Table of Contents for
Supreme Law School: E-mail